PAWAN KUMAR AND 4 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 17 OTHERS
WRIC/16265/2025 · 2025-05-27
Manish Kumar Nigam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 59383 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 59383 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91044 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16265 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Satyawan Shahi, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 8 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief :
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature order certiorari quashing the impugned dated 04.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2/ Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Division, Basti in Case No. 01142 of 2018, Computerized Case No. C201817000001142 (Pawan Kumar and others Vs. Manoj Kumar and others), Under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioners moved an application for recall of the order by which the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The said application was rejected. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a revision. During pendency of the revision, the petitioners moved an application for amendment in the plaint which has been rejected by the order impugned.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that unless the suit is restored there cannot be any amendment in the plaint and the application filed by the petitioner was misconceived.
6. In view of the same, no illegality has been committed by the court below in passing the impugned orders. However, in case, the suit of the petitioners is restored, they may move an appropriate application for amendment and the same shall be considered in accordance with law after hearing all the parties without being
influenced by the fact that the revisional court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners.
7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 S. Singh (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad